They knew...

[Justice 0]

Umm, all those polls were taken after all the 9/11 "Iraq-Saddam-Al Qarda-Taliban-Uranium-WMD-Taliban"  media blitz....Remember Rummy said we knew EXACTLY where the WMD's are and painted a picture that we were going to fly in, disarm Saddam, and the Iraqi citizens would be waiting with pro-america parades.  In otherwords....a load of BS.

Again, the largest focus was on WMDs, which was supported by most of the time-honored intelligence and knowledge we already had. Try telling the UN in 1998 that Saddam had no WMDs and they would laugh at you. Same two years after that and such. There was no reason whatsoever not to believe that Saddam had WMDs, from all the intelligence gathered and given.

 

Secondly, if you haven't been reading, the Senate has said that Joe Wilson gave us a crock and that the Uranium claims actually DID have truth and were a credible threat.

Oh well despite the fact that inspectors had never found any, and were pulled out in order to start dropping bombs!?!

Because, hey, UN Inspectors before Blix DID find stuff and always thought that there was more out there.

 

And on not finding anything: I keep mentioning this, because everyone loves to ignore it, but Saddam was developing a long-range missile program that could hit as far as Israel and Egypt. Doesn't sound too peaceful, does it? Now, I have to wonder what the hell a mentally-unstable dictator would need a long range missile program with no payload for, but...

[NoCalMike 0]

Umm, all those polls were taken after all the 9/11 "Iraq-Saddam-Al Qarda-Taliban-Uranium-WMD-Taliban"  media blitz....Remember Rummy said we knew EXACTLY where the WMD's are and painted a picture that we were going to fly in, disarm Saddam, and the Iraqi citizens would be waiting with pro-america parades.  In otherwords....a load of BS.

Again, the largest focus was on WMDs, which was supported by most of the time-honored intelligence and knowledge we already had. Try telling the UN in 1998 that Saddam had no WMDs and they would laugh at you. Same two years after that and such. There was no reason whatsoever not to believe that Saddam had WMDs, from all the intelligence gathered and given.

 

Secondly, if you haven't been reading, the Senate has said that Joe Wilson gave us a crock and that the Uranium claims actually DID have truth and were a credible threat.

Oh well despite the fact that inspectors had never found any, and were pulled out in order to start dropping bombs!?!

Because, hey, UN Inspectors before Blix DID find stuff and always thought that there was more out there.

 

And on not finding anything: I keep mentioning this, because everyone loves to ignore it, but Saddam was developing a long-range missile program that could hit as far as Israel and Egypt. Doesn't sound too peaceful, does it? Now, I have to wonder what the hell a mentally-unstable dictator would need a long range missile program with no payload for, but...

Who in the hell ever claimed Saddam was a peaceful guy? I don't remember Bush saying we were going to Iraq to dismantle the deadly long range missle system. I specifically remember hearing "WMD's, WE KNOW WHERE THEY ARE...."

[Guest INXS]

I've been saying this stuff for over a year but I was usually dismissed as a "liberal" or sometimes a whack job conspiracy theorist.

 

Yes, No WMD and YES, the Bush administration blatantly lied. I'm thanking God that it seems that every day more and more of the American public are waking up to what a deceitful government they have.

 

The neocons always fall back on the argument that Saddam was evil and had to go regardless no matter what excuses and lies were told to justify an invasion to the people and the rest of the world. Well, I for one do not like being lied to (even though I never swallowed the lies for one second) and I find it disturbing that Bush & co have been so underhanded.

 

Yes, Saddam should have been brought to justice for the atrocities that he committed but a full on invasion (and fucking up) of Iraq was not needed.

[NoCalMike 0]

I've been saying this stuff for over a year but I was usually dismissed as a "liberal" or sometimes a whack job conspiracy theorist.

 

Yes, No WMD and YES, the Bush administration blatantly lied. I'm thanking God that it seems that every day more and more of the American public are waking up to what a deceitful government they have.

 

The neocons always fall back on the argument that Saddam was evil and had to go regardless no matter what excuses and lies were told to justify an invasion to the people and the rest of the world. Well, I for one do not like being lied to (even though I never swallowed the lies for one second) and I find it disturbing that Bush & co have been so underhanded.

 

Yes, Saddam should have been brought to justice for the atrocities that he committed but a full on invasion (and fucking up) of Iraq was not needed.

The craziest part is the portion of the crowd that will admit they were misledand possibly lied to, and just don't care for the mere reason that they personally wanted to take Iraq out.

[snuffbox 0]

We need to find the attackers before we invade the uninvolved.

We've actually found a lot of them already. Do we need to each and every one of them before we can actually concentrate on anything else?

 

Terrorism does not eradicate terrorism.

 

Out of all the stupidity I've EVER seen in CE, that has to take the cake. That's just... utter ignorance.

Sorry duder,

 

Attacking unrelated countries and thus increasing terrorism is not the right way to fight this war.

 

Before we invaded Iraq there wasnt a terrorist attack nearly everyday...now there is.

[NYU 0]

I find it strange that Bush never even took the time out to plant weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

 

I mean, at least that would show he put forth some genuine effort into lying to the American people. Now, this whole war thing just makes him look lazy.

[Guest INXS]

I am seriously curious as to why some WMD weren't planted.

[Justice 0]

Umm, all those polls were taken after all the 9/11 "Iraq-Saddam-Al Qarda-Taliban-Uranium-WMD-Taliban"  media blitz....Remember Rummy said we knew EXACTLY where the WMD's are and painted a picture that we were going to fly in, disarm Saddam, and the Iraqi citizens would be waiting with pro-america parades.  In otherwords....a load of BS.

Again, the largest focus was on WMDs, which was supported by most of the time-honored intelligence and knowledge we already had. Try telling the UN in 1998 that Saddam had no WMDs and they would laugh at you. Same two years after that and such. There was no reason whatsoever not to believe that Saddam had WMDs, from all the intelligence gathered and given.

 

Secondly, if you haven't been reading, the Senate has said that Joe Wilson gave us a crock and that the Uranium claims actually DID have truth and were a credible threat.

Oh well despite the fact that inspectors had never found any, and were pulled out in order to start dropping bombs!?!

Because, hey, UN Inspectors before Blix DID find stuff and always thought that there was more out there.

 

And on not finding anything: I keep mentioning this, because everyone loves to ignore it, but Saddam was developing a long-range missile program that could hit as far as Israel and Egypt. Doesn't sound too peaceful, does it? Now, I have to wonder what the hell a mentally-unstable dictator would need a long range missile program with no payload for, but...

Who in the hell ever claimed Saddam was a peaceful guy? I don't remember Bush saying we were going to Iraq to dismantle the deadly long range missle system. I specifically remember hearing "WMD's, WE KNOW WHERE THEY ARE...."

Apparently Long Range Missile systems can no longer cause huge amounts of destruction. Someone wasn't watching on March 21st, 2003. And hey, who cares that they are in the hands of some unstable dictator? I mean, jeez, those things couldn't possibly destablize a region already on the brinking of blowing up. (Hint: Imagine if we had to go into Iraq because they had started firing these things off at Israel and how hard it would be to hold back the Pitbull they call the Israeli Military from rampaging through Syria on its way to Iraq)

 

At any rate, did you ever concieve that they built the missiles to carry a certain payload? Creating a missile system without something to deliver is moronic. The Kay report tells us they were actively rebuilding their C/B Programs, and the fact that we've found warehouses full of destroyed computers tells you that they were working on something big that they didn't want us to know about. Perhaps making logical conclusions is beyond your comprehension, but not beyond mine.

 

Sorry duder,

 

Attacking unrelated countries and thus increasing terrorism is not the right way to fight this war.

 

Before we invaded Iraq there wasnt a terrorist attack nearly everyday...now there is.

 

Terrorism can not be stopped by simply hunting down the terrorists we know of and bringing them to justice. We have to start fixing the Middle East if we want any hope of completely tearing these people out. People like the Taliban, like Saddam Hussein, were governments who supported terrorism, who actively preached against the US while oppressing their own peoples, who were destablizing threats to the Middle East. Iraq, with it's military power and obviously dangerous (He's already tried invading three countries, people). If we want to fix terrorism, we have to fix the Middle East. To fix the Middle East, we have to take Saddam out of the equation, otherwise any other major action you take could allow Saddam to use his military for a big power grab. This is a simple concept, but I guess you don't get that.

 

And before we invaded Iraq there WERE terrorist attacks every other day. It's been like that since 2000 in the West Bank, "duder", so your analogy is pretty lost. It's sad to say, but at least the Iraqi people have a chance now, rather than just being stuck under the thumb of some evil bastard who starved them to fucking death and terrorized them for pleasure and to keep them in line.

[Styles 0]

Terrorism can not be stopped by simply hunting down the terrorists we know of and bringing them to justice. We have to start fixing the Middle East if we want any hope of completely tearing these people out. People like the Taliban, like Saddam Hussein, were governments who supported terrorism, who actively preached against the US while oppressing their own peoples, who were destablizing threats to the Middle East. Iraq, with it's military power and obviously dangerous (He's already tried invading three countries, people). If we want to fix terrorism, we have to fix the Middle East. To fix the Middle East, we have to take Saddam out of the equation, otherwise any other major action you take could allow Saddam to use his military for a big power grab. This is a simple concept, but I guess you don't get that.

 

And before we invaded Iraq there WERE terrorist attacks every other day. It's been like that since 2000 in the West Bank, "duder", so your analogy is pretty lost. It's sad to say, but at least the Iraqi people have a chance now, rather than just being stuck under the thumb of some evil bastard who starved them to fucking death and terrorized them for pleasure and to keep them in line.

I agree with every word you said. Well put. (There were never any terrorists attacks!? Tell that to the poor citizens of Israel who have had to deal with this shit almost every day for years now).

 

Iraq looks bad in the short term, but in the long term will prove essential. This is a long and complicated process, and not as simple as "find Bin Laden and then we'll all be safe!" Removing Saddam eliminates a dangerous obstacle early before he could become a threat to our interests in the Middle East and a conveniant ally to our enemies in the War on Terror. It also diverts the terrorists attentions to Iraq, keeping them distracted from trying to strike again in the US. And ultimately, when the country stabalizes, and if a democracy can suceed it could lead to an ideology shift in other parts of the Middle East that could be more powerful in fighting terrorism than our military ever could be. This ultimately will be remembered as far more important than any questionable WMD intelligence.

 

History will judge whether going into Iraq was the right move and will judge George W. Bush's legacy. What seems like a short sighted blunder in 10 years could be viewed as the first front in winning the War on Terror.

[2GOLD 0]

Honestly, I hope we never find Bin Laden.

Why?

 

Because I get the bad feeling some Americans are stupid enough to believe we will be 100% safe if Bin Laden is dead. That worries me, more than worries me it plain out scares me.

 

As for the lies of WMD, a long range missile is good enough for me. I'm pretty sure a long range missile can do lots of damage. I think some (not all) have this belief that WMD should only mean "weapon that can strike the USA or UK" and if a weapon cannot reach us then it's not a big deal.

 

Also, we ARE still looking for Bin Laden. What do people want? CNN to broadcast every little movement, maybe a big ass "THE HUNT FOR BIN LADEN" graphic complete with "where our army is" and a "where they believe Bin Laden is" logos with little illustrations?

[Styles 0]

That would kick ass.

[Guest thebigjig]

When our own president says that "he doesnt care" where Bin Laden is, during a press conference... then that's enough for me to think that the man isn't the top priority, when he should be

 

And it's quite possible that in the long run, Iraq may just very well be looked back upon as the single greatest thing to ever happen in the middle east... but if the very possible scenario of civil war breaks out between the factions, which in turn causes the destruction of hundreds of thousands of lives... or in the worst case scenario, of other middle eastern countries brought into the mess, this could quite possibly end up being the single biggest, most disasterous blunder in military history

 

What disturbs me the most, is when I bring this up to many conservatives I argue with...the response is, "good, let 'em blow each other up"

[snuffbox 0]

A foreign policy based on 'not caring' about men who kill 3,000 Americans and dubiously attacking other countries is incredibly and tragically wrong.

 

I feel that Bush is a good man at heart and means well for this country...unfortunately he is more wrong than any military leader since Hitler(that is a military prowess comparison, nothing else).

 

You dont allow 3000+ Americans to die under your watch as president and then not care about finding the perpetrator. You dont send another 1000 brave souls to parish in Iraq and igntite further terrorist attacks on a daily basis.

 

None but the saddest lemming can support such dangerous and reckless foreign policy.

 

Terrorism does not eradicate terrorism...its not a ridiculous concept. We cant attack for no reason and expect to not be attacked in retaliation at some point. Diplomacy trumps our current elementary school bully philosophy. We simply must not look at ourselves as a perfect nation, we must correct our ills and our mistakes. We must use our minds a little in this war on terror....We cannot ignore mass murderers like Bin Laden to focus on random regimes.

 

This is important and needs to be discussed with more intelligence than 'kill em all'! nuke the bastards!' rhetoric.

 

Bush is a good man at heart...but never has a presidents utter lack of foreign diplomacy and military experience ever shown through darker than it does today.

[Guest GreatOne]

Uh huh........................

 

He just 'allowed' 911 to happen, much like Clinton 'allowed' the first WTC attack, much like FDR 'allowed' Pearl.

 

Oh BTW you think that going into Iraq and Afghanistan (funny, you know proponents of the 'right war' seem to be just as 'forgetful' about that as we are) incites more terrorism what do you think either inactivity or increased reliance on the UN would do?

 

So what the hell's the solution supposed to be anyway? You DON'T negotiate with these scum or threaten them with sanctions. You don't use diplomacy. So what the hell do you want?

 

Bin Laden, I hate to tell the libs here, isn't as important--just by himself--as bringing down the organization. I guess all the Al Qaeda ops we've rounded up in the last couple years is meaningless..........

 

So I guess after 911 we're just supposed to slink back into our little cave and say 'Oh they sure showed us, taught us a lesson', fuck that. No pulling out of Somalia at the first sign of trouble (basically doing what I just said) didn't lend these guys any support whatsoever, nope..............

[2GOLD 0]

Bin Laden ISN'T the big deal, he is the figure head the media put up. Do we have to get him? Yes, but once he goes down it doesn't signal the end of terrorism. They are looking for him but the TOP concern is trying to establish governments that won't aide the terrorist organizations.

 

If they focus 100% on Bin Laden and had nailed Bin Laden with many middle east governments ready to support his followers, we would have seen an attack on the US that would have probably topped 9/11 and we better come to realize that damn quickly.

 

Clean out the support THEN you get the man. Get the man before you get the support...that is just a stupid plan of action.

[teke184 0]

Bush is right about one thing... Bin Ladin isn't important right now. Bin Ladin is hiding out in Pakistan or Afghanistan with very little contact with Al Qaeda. He's just a figurehead at this point, so getting him may make us happy and hurt Al Qaeda's morale, but it won't have a direct effect on their operations.

 

 

 

Al Zarkawi (spelled incorrectly) is the BIG prize at the moment because he is in charge of the organization right now. We get him and most of the other top lieutenants, we shut down Al Qaeda's big-op capability and cut off a lot of the funding for their recruitment and small-level activities.

[Special K 0]

Blah, at this point I would say the Iraq war debate is over. This is what I think.

 

Bush administration misled -not lied to- the public. Bush had a political vendetta, and exaggerated, but truly thought that Saddam was a threat as well. Just had to sell a war. Apparently, however, the legislature that voted enthusiastically for the war had the same reports. If so, anyone who voted for the war is just as culpable, the only excuse is you're to lazy to read (or have an assistant read) the documents provided. That's a horrible excuse. I think also congressmen were to scared of Bush's popularity to vote against it. Guess what. You are a pussy!

 

Saddam's gone, that's good. No one can seriously claim that isn't the case. However, how do you judge how horrible a dictator is? Saddam was being pretty sedate recently. There are tons of dictatorships, each more horrible than the next. If we're really spreading democaracy (which, of course, is cool, but you have to weigh human life.) how do we judge whom we invade?

 

lastly. We shouldn't pull out. That would be abandoning the Iraqis, who, like it or not, we bear a responsibility for now.

 

I would challenge most people to argue with those points.

[Slickster 0]

I would challenge most people to argue with those points.

I can't, you hit the nail right on the head.

[Guest GreatOne]

Saddam's gone, that's good. No one can seriously claim that isn't the case. However, how do you judge how horrible a dictator is? Saddam was being pretty sedate recently.

 

Does 'sedate' include still being able to fire missiles into Israel?

[Special K 0]

Um, pretty much. He was perhaps able to fire explosive warheads at Israel. That's so much better than say, the PLO, you know, who broke their contract, and attacks our ally all the time.

[Justice 0]

A foreign policy based on 'not caring' about men who kill 3,000 Americans and dubiously attacking other countries is incredibly and tragically wrong.

Then again, you didn't care about the 26,298,000 people suffering in Iraq. Who is worse here?

 

I feel that Bush is a good man at heart and means well for this country...unfortunately he is more wrong than any military leader since Hitler(that is a military prowess comparison, nothing else).

 

All in all, that's STILL a pretty dumb-ass quote. Hitler tried to direct the war from his bedroom rather than let his generals do the talking. I haven't seen any such thing from the Bush Administration. So you'd better clarify this a bit better...

 

You dont allow 3000+ Americans to die under your watch as president and then not care about finding the perpetrator. You dont send another 1000 brave souls to parish in Iraq and igntite further terrorist attacks on a daily basis.

 

Bin Laden wasn't the single perpetrator here. An entire organization was. Hell, as pointed out already, Bin Laden isn't even the organizational leader of Al-Qaedia right now, so why waste tons of resources on him? That would be like the Russians stopping all offensive action against German to hunt down Hitler because he's somewhere in Eastern Europe. You are missing the forest for one tree.

 

Not only this, but it isn't like we haven't captured any Al-Qaedia members who were in on 9/11. I'm almost dead sure we caught the #3 man a year or so ago, and we've captured numerous Al-Qaedia operatives as well. It's not as though we haven't been doing damage to them, you just don't see it on T.V. because, well, if we give away our hand, they can adjust and not make those mistakes anymore.

 

None but the saddest lemming can support such dangerous and reckless foreign policy.

 

You mean like Kerry advocating give Nuclear Fuel to Iran? I'd consider that a whole hell of a lot more dangerous at the moment.

 

Terrorism does not eradicate terrorism...its not a ridiculous concept.

 

The ridiculous concept is that you consider what we are doing as terrorism. I guess that was too hard for you too figure out, though...

 

We cant attack for no reason

 

Whoa, apparently UN Resolutions don't count as "reasons" anymore.

 

and expect to not be attacked in retaliation at some point.

 

Do you REALLY think that if we hadn't attacked Iraq, they would have forgotten about us? Whether we invaded Iraq or not, they would STILL be at odds with us.

 

Diplomacy trumps our current elementary school bully philosophy.

 

Because lord knows we can negotiate with Saddam. I mean, Jesus, he's only been violating UN Resolutions and Sactions for the past 11 years.

 

"Peace in our time" is not a strategy. That was proven by Neville Chamberlain. We can't use diplomacy against these people because they don't work on a diplomatic level, they work at a military level. They don't sign treaties, they attack people. Wake up.

 

We simply must not look at ourselves as a perfect nation, we must correct our ills and our mistakes.

 

Never said we are perfect, but no one is.

 

And for the record, finishing off Saddam WAS correcting a mistake.

 

We must use our minds a little in this war on terror....We cannot ignore mass murderers like Bin Laden to focus on random regimes.

 

We are. That's why we took out Iraq early on so Saddam couldn't cause trouble and attack someone while we were trying to fix the Middle East. No one else would be more likely to cause trouble than him if we were trying to do anything major, so it was SMART to get him out of the way. Maybe if you could get past your single-minded obession with Bin Laden we could actually plan out an intelligent way to cure the disease rather than deal with it's symptoms. Did you read ANY part of my last post?

 

Also, Saddam killed over 1 Million people outside his own country. He's slaughtered his own people. Are you saying we should ignore this mass murder? And by the by, I know about Sudan. And just so you know, WE were the ones who wanted Sactions on Sudan for all the crap they've done, and we couldn't get it passed with them on it. WE aren't the ones ignoring shit here, the rest of the world is. Wake up.

 

This is important and needs to be discussed with more intelligence than 'kill em all'! nuke the bastards!' rhetoric.

 

I'm not an advocate of that, but it's a much better strategy than crying "Can't we all get along?" on the world stage.

 

Bush is a good man at heart...but never has a presidents utter lack of foreign diplomacy and military experience ever shown through darker than it does today.

 

You are truly a little, deluded 'duder'.

 

-=Kris

... Hey, I've always wanted to do this! I feel, like, so cool now...

[Special K 0]

Still don't see why Iraq was so important. elucidate? If we invaded every country who has hated us over the course of history, we'd be trying to fuck up half the planet. Saddam was a horrible man. And in the middle east, unless we spend innumerable amounts of money/people, it's going to be taken over by another horrible man. Nothing willl have changed. The Bush admin. apparently didn't take into account that a lot of people in Iraw are FUCKING CRAZY.

 

Face it, Bush invaded for a personal vendetta.

[Justice 0]

Still don't see why Iraq was so important. elucidate? If we invaded every country who has hated us over the course of history, we'd be trying to fuck up half the planet. Saddam was a horrible man. And in the middle east, unless we spend innumerable amounts of money/people, it's going to be taken over by another horrible man. Nothing willl have changed. The Bush admin. apparently didn't take into account that a lot of people in Iraw are FUCKING CRAZY.

 

Face it, Bush invaded for a personal vendetta.

Because of

 

1) Military: Any military action we take or took in the Middle East could easily be muddle up by Saddam, as he still has a incredibly formidable ground military. If we were to, say, take action into Iran for possibly holding Nuclear Weapons and the incredible danger of those falling into the wrong hands, Saddam could make a grab at Saudi Arabia while all our forces on are somewhere else. He's proven himself as a loose cannon, and just because he wasn't doing anything at the moment doesn't mean he wasn't going to do anything ever again. He was just waiting for the right chance, and we simply took that away from him. And to respond to your 'sedate' comment: he wasn't sedate. Sedate is not doing anything hostile. Building missile systems that allow you to strike all over the Middle East and having the capacity to quickly being production on C/B weapons is NOT a sedate country. What about no-fly zones as well? Iraq was not sedate, and it was still a very dangerous thing.

 

2) Geography: Iraq is almost dead center in the Middle East. This was great for Saddam because he could strike just about anywhere he wanted with his great military. By eliminating him, we eliminate the huge destablizing possiblity of Saddam launching an attack on Saudi Arabia, Iran, and others. Plus it gives us a great base of operations for fixing the Middle East.

 

Most anything else I can think of is pretty well covered with the above two.

 

Am I the only one who hates the "It's only gonna get taken over by some other crazy bastard" idea that it's impossible to set about democracy in Iraq? Did we say the same for Germany after it started two World Wars? They seem pretty good right now. That's a piss-poor "The West is Superior" argument to think that the Iraqis can't form democracy.

 

Political Vendetta? Possibly. I'm sure there was a little bitterness that his father didn't actually finish the job. Of course, there are many other reasons that can also be used to justify it.

 

And isn't that a renig on your earlier quote? I mean, if he thought it was a threat as well, obviously it wasn't completely a political vendetta.

[Special K 0]

Bush never said he was invading Iraq becuase it was strategically inviting. If we're invading to set up a massive front in the middle east, um, I think the people/legislators should know that.

 

And their awesome military might of guys with rifles in SUVs sure fucked us right up, eh? Anyone that thinks Saddam's conventional military was a threat, to you I direct a reaspberry. THHPBB.

[Justice 0]

Bush never said he was invading Iraq becuase it was strategically inviting. If we're invading to set up a massive front in the middle east, um, I think the people/legislators should know that.

I'm just explaining why I see Iraq as a legitmate step in the War on Terror. Frankly, I'm sure many people would

 

And their awesome military might of guys with rifles in SUVs sure fucked us right up, eh? Anyone that thinks Saddam's conventional military was a threat, to you I direct a reaspberry. THHPBB.

 

That's the Taliban, numb-nuts. Sorry, but Iraq had an actual formidable military, especially in the Middle East. The only place that could really stand up to them around there is Israel, so them causing havoc wouldn't be out of possibility.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

This is a long and complicated process, and not as simple as "find Bin Laden and then we'll all be safe!"

How about "Find Bin-Laden and a whole fuckload of people will sleep better at night?"

 

It also diverts the terrorists attentions to Iraq, keeping them distracted from trying to strike again in the US.

 

That is the most weak-ass arguement I've ever seen. "Well, they're killing our sons and daughters in a hellhole instead of killing our sons and daughters on the city street."

[Justice 0]

How about "Find Bin-Laden and a whole fuckload of people will sleep better at night?"

This would be a legit gripe if we weren't looking for Bin Laden at all. But we are. There isn't much more we can do that wouldn't be a waste on him.

 

That is the most weak-ass arguement I've ever seen. "Well, they're killing our sons and daughters in a hellhole instead of killing our sons and daughters on the city street."

 

You are over-generalizing. Which would you rather have them attack: Innocent people in NYC, or Marines who can fight back in Iraq? I don't subscribe to the theory that much, but there is a decent logic to it that it's harder for a terrorist to attack a dozen Marines who is trained to kill rather than a dozen men, women, and children off the street at home.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Whoa, apparently UN Resolutions don't count as "reasons" anymore.

The UN resolution said that in the event that Saddam was in violation, it was up to the UN, not the United States, to figure out what to do about it.

[Justice 0]

Whoa, apparently UN Resolutions don't count as "reasons" anymore.

The UN resolution said that in the event that Saddam was in violation, it was up to the UN, not the United States, to figure out what to do about it.

Hey, it's still a reason. They were in violation of the UN resolutions set against them, and the US decided to enforce it because the UN refused to take action. I'm perfectly fine with that.

[Guest thebigjig]

Whoa, apparently UN Resolutions don't count as "reasons" anymore.

The UN resolution said that in the event that Saddam was in violation, it was up to the UN, not the United States, to figure out what to do about it.

Hey, it's still a reason. They were in violation of the UN resolutions set against them, and the US decided to enforce it because the UN refused to take action. I'm perfectly fine with that.

so if cops don't enforce the speed limit, can I tape one of those neato flashing light thingys I got at Spencers Gifts onto my car and enforce the law for them??

 

j/k of course, but thats the first thing I thought of when I read that response